AFP = Above Freedom of Press?

As 22 terrorism cases are being prepared for trial in Melbourne and Sydney, the boys and girls of the Australian media are being told to speak when they're spoken to. No more interrupting please. The Australian Federal Police have a job to do. They're preventing crimes before they happen, and don't want want people complaining about how they do it.

AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty may have more chance of gaining the confidence of the Australian public if he hadn't let his officers be perceived as the political tools of the Howard Government. Complaints that media reporting of AFP bungling are hampering the processes of Justice would be much more valid if we hadn't seen the appalling treatment of Haneef and the ridiculous charade (which ASIO are doing their damnedest never to reveal) surrounding Scott Parkin. That a Premier of a state of Australia publicly called the AFP "Keystone Cops" surely would have hurt Keelty's feelings, especially when the "Ministerial Direction" his force received began to appear focussed on implementing the goals of the Bush/Cheney White House.

Keelty, it would seem, serves Whitehall more than the White House. He is aware of MI5 beliefs that Australia is being used as a preparation ground for Islamic terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom. That's a main part of the reason for all the embarrassment. On the day of Haneef's arrest the available circumstantial evidence suggested that the doctor was indeed part of such an attack. The AFP were publicly exposed to the world as being apparently unable to handle a situation that may have resulted in another cataclysmic event occurring in London.

The ministers that presided over the fiascos have been booted from the corridors of power to the back-alleys of Liberal Party HQ. Keelty, on the other hand, remains aloof from calls that such as him should be accountable for their mistakes.

Thanks to all the publicity surrounding the inept handling of counterterrorism suspects, there will be many more people keenly following the upcoming trials than there would have been had the AFP been perceived to do its job properly. Fair enough, I reckon, they deserve it. If the extra vigilance ensures that the forthcoming terrorism cases are handled properly, and that everything's been "done by the book" up to the point of trial, such observers are fulfilling a useful role in aiding the maintenance of integrity in Australian society.

Anyway, that's enough rambling from me. Here's the full text of Keelty's much discussed Tuesday night speech. Over to you. Oh, one more thing. The AFP are protecting us against Climate Change? It makes for interesting comparisons.

[ category:

Anti-Terrorism Laws

]

I've known young men too.

Submitted by F Kendall on March 13, 2008 - 9:01pm.

I also have known young men who, while driving, commiting no offence, have been pulled over by police and had their car searched.

I consider this to be an absolute outrage. An absolute negation of all the rights that I had thought that people had in our society.

That young men accept this shows that they understand our society to be something quite different from what I see it as, what I knew it as, what I grew up with and absorbed ... but the evidence shows that I am wrong.

Such as Mick Keelty and his ilk, with their combination of fearmongering and lies, try to expedite this change.

In fact, what those younger are mainly likely to turn to is not terrorism, that nonsensical and vague threat so appealing to the older or more fearful, but the views of such as Ryan Heath. And they may be right.

Clayton's Inquiry indeed

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on March 14, 2008 - 5:08pm.

Labor are going to have a Haneef inquiry while excluding analysis of the information flow f-up betwen the AFP and Scotland Yard? Bloody gutless!!

I'd love to know how this came about. I'm getting tired of (to borrow from Jenny) stable doors being shut without any attempt to track down the horses.

Whatever new information is going to be released, it had better be bloody good.

Clarke Inquiry into the Haneef case

Submitted by Mark Sergeant on March 13, 2008 - 12:20pm.

The terms of reference for the Clarke Inquiry into the Haneef case are in this Media Release. This morning's SMH has some background on Clarke.

First impressions are that Clarke sounds promising if he's as tough and independent as the SMH is saying. The terms of reference are broad enough, too.

A shame the inquiry won't have coercive powers, though.

Australia's approach to terror might encourage it.

Submitted by John Pratt on March 10, 2008 - 7:52am.

A study from the Global Terrorism Research Centre at Monash University suggests that Australia's approach to stopping terrorism might actually be encouraging it.
Waleed Aly from the centre says the aggressive police approach is alienating young Muslim men, who may be more likely to turn to radical groups as a result.
He says a community-based approach may be more effective than a hardline approach.

The AFP and its heavy handed approach to terrorism may be pushing young Muslim men towards terrorism. The use of force and harassment rarely changes hearts and minds. It is about time we took a more inclusive approach. Howard and his mates in the US favour the use of strong arm tactics but evidence is now showing that this does not work and in fact can be counter productive.

Making excuses

Submitted by Jenny Hume on March 13, 2008 - 3:21pm.

John, a lot of young fellows I know have complained over the years at the rather abrupt treatment they got at the hands of the police when they were pulled over on the road and so on. Seems the police take the view that young fellows are likely up to no good and do not give them the benefit of the doubt too often. And they don't necessarily pick on one group or another. These kids were white, young and male.

I see no justification for any of them, as a result of that hassling, to go and join a radical group which may have terrorist actions on its agenda, solely for the purpose of avenging their hurt pride or feelings. If they are that way inclined I am sure the seeds were long there and they just looked for an excuse to sow them in some fertile soil.

Let us not make excuses for them, or allow them to make excuses for themselves. Young people know that terrorist acts are morally wrong. And they know that radical groups are into that sort of thing. So they have a choice. Join or keep out of it all.

Thanks Richard

Submitted by Michael de Angelos on February 2, 2008 - 9:02am.

Mark Colvin & PM is one of my favourite radio programmes but I often miss it.

Regarding the AFP's manipulation of the media, this brings to mind a huge bust 4/5 years ago of about 200 people on computer porn charges. The sensational reports led to 6 people committing suicide. What angered me at the time was that several commentators including the usual self-appointed experts and former NSW premier Bob Carr went on TV to say that those who had died had been offered medical help but at least were not around to offend anymore.

It was pure Carr - absolutely little concept of the presumption of innocence. Sometime it does help to have lawyers in parliament.

Then 60 Minutes broadcast a program with a presenter brandishing a huge bundle of papers claiming thousands of people had been investigated during the same case - implying that they were all involved. Except they weren't charged with anything. The presenter didn't seem to grasp the concept that quite obviously many people will be investigated in the normal course and found to be innocent.

An insider later told me that all the info had been supplied by the AFP who were actively promoting the idea of the show. Even worse, it was later leaked out that the FBI had done all the work and just supplied names and info to the AFP who were taking full credit.

Only recently I came across a piece written by the British investigative reporter Duncan Campbell ( who is married to the award winning actress Julie Christie) whose career I have followed for over 30 years. He's exposed numerous government flaws and stuff-ups. His lengthy investigations suggested that a majority of those convicted may have indeed been innocent - including a famous rock musician and the reason many plead guilty was simply out of sheer fear with screeching media exposure being a strong factor.

I'm all for strong police forces like the AFP, or security forces like ASIO. Indeed in NSW we now have a clean force thanks to Ken Maroney (although his replacement sounds like a worry), but when they start trying to manipulate the media and are actively supported in this by politicians, democracy will suffer. The sad thing is, the majority of those working in these organisations are honest and there to do the right thing.

Keelty's words don't represent Austrailian lawyers

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on February 7, 2008 - 1:52pm.

Law Institute of Victoria president Tony Burke:

The media's role in exposing the weaknesses in the Federal police case against Dr Mohamed Haneef was paramount. It should not be forgotten that the AFP first released information to the media in an effort to influence public opinion.

It was not until the brave and potentially career ending moves by Dr Haneef's barrister, Stephen Keim, SC, to release information to the media, that police misinformation was countered.

In this case, by working together, the media and legal representatives exposed shortcomings in the legal process to the glare of nationwide exposure.

We must be zealous to ensure that in our common commitment to protect the Australian way of life, we don't inadvertently destroy it. The Australian concept of a fair go for all is a paramount value.

I believe that our police force, our courts, our government and legal system are united with the general community in the ongoing efforts to keep Australia free from terrorism.

But I don't believe it has to be done in the dark.

The legal system and the criminal justice system will survive robust scrutiny. And no-one should have to surrender the right to a fair and open trial, including alleged terrorists.

The rights of all of us depend on the rights of each one of us being protected.

There's an interesting comparative between UK and Australian terror laws on today's World Today. I'll put up a link to the transcript when it's posted. It looks like even the Poms think we've gone too far.

The Melbourne Terrorism Trial- The Thin Blue Line?

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on February 15, 2008 - 10:10am.

I know Mick Keelty wants us to shut up till the case has run its course. However, looking at what's happened so far it doesn't look like there's much evidence that these blokes were much more than a Jihad fan club.

There is a serious liberties issue here. If you're going to be jailed for possessing information and talking about an idea, the information had better be pretty bloody good.

From the same people, who around the same time were deporting Parkin as a violent activist, I won't have much faith in the prosecution case unless something towards the level of documentation of an attack initiation turns up.

''Some of it is Boy's Own stuff but it has a serious side to it,'' says the prosecutor. If he has to apologise for his evidence before he submits it, perhaps his words belie his own skepticism.

Now we're beginning to see what Keelty is talking about. He doesn't want us discussing how he wants to lock up people as terrorists with case evidence consisting of circumstantial crap.

The Mole In The Wall Gang

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on February 15, 2008 - 6:25pm.

Could these blokes have organised a fart in a baked bean factory? Nope. Yep, it looks like they wanted to do something, but couldn't get connected up and funded, let alone get their act together No wonder. They've watched a couple of videos and read a bit of stuff, and it looks like one of them has tried to get some money in Lebanon. He's the one telling his mates to "sell your jocks or something" if he's picked up the airport. In other words, he hasn't any money, and neither do they. At any rate, having been placed on a Lebanese watch list (by the AFP, a la Bali Nine?)) was he stopped and questioned? If so this surely would have been mentioned by now.

How many Commodores would you have to strip to finance a nuclear Jihad? Come on.

In this trail focussed on bugged conversations, let's see how far the conversations go. It looks like there's going to be proof of intent, but that's about it.

Thank you Eliot, I now understand what you meant when you said (while we were discussing Haneef) that if you wanted to incriminate someone you would engage them in conversation to leave a trail of electronic data. Now I'm wondering if there was a mole in the gang to give the bugs something to pick up.

No matter how much they talked about Jihad, they don't appear to have had the ability to execute their whims, or the money to get the equipment. Not only that, but I doubt any "respectable terrorist organisation" would touch people so clueless with someone else's bargepole. There are reputations to consider, after all.

Conspiracy with intent, at the most. Maybe the double entendre to the concept of "framing" a story as well. Whether it is found that a crime (besides nicking a Holden) has been committed is yet to be seen.

My bet is that one of them was trying for spondulix from Hizbollah. Can he be convicted as a terrorist (like Jihad Jack) if he wasn't given any?

Conspiracy

Submitted by Scott Dunmore on February 18, 2008 - 12:38pm.

My grandfather was jailed for two years on a conspiracy charge. How did it come about? Simple, the pigs had someone banged up and offered to cut him a deal. Give up someone else and we'll go easy. Set up a meet, talk over the job and we'll have our bloke listening in and taking notes. It was a shit job but the old man gave lip service to the stooge.

For those of you who have no memory of this, I also met a Croation who spent seven years in Cooma jail on the evidence of a masquerading "agent provocoteur" Serb on a similar charge. If the opinion I received had come from sources other than main stream multi millionaires about his innocence I would have ignored it. Then there is the case of David Eastman. We must be very wary

Code Name SIO39

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on February 19, 2008 - 9:46pm.

Told you so!

[Herald-Sun extract]

Mr Maidment said that a conversation was held between Mr Benbrika and an undercover officer, codenamed SIO39, about explosives.
In the conversation SIO39 says had had used ammonium nitrate at least a 100 times in Tasmania to blow up tree stumps but it was now illegal to buy the fertilizer.
Mr Benbrika asks SIO39 if he can blow up a house and SIO39 replies "if you need to blow up a house you can blow up a house".
Mr Benbrika asks the undercover operative if he knows how to mix the explosive and SIO39 confirms he can.
Mr Benbrika then asks him if he has ever thought he might "do something", which the prosecution claims is code for a terrorist attack, and SIO39 says he thinks about it all the time.
Mr Maidment said Mr Benbrika asks if SIO39 can pass on his knowledge of ammonium nitrate.
Mr Benbrika:"If you bring (it) can you show me how to do it. I need to learn."
Mr Benbrika tells SIO39 that some of the "brothers" are being followed by authorities.
"They know there is a group of people in Melbourne who would like to do something," Mr Benbrika says.
The prosecutor said that later Mr Benbrika became concerned that SIO39 was a plant into the group.
In another conversation between the pair Mr Maidment said that Mr Benbrika backed off significantly about participating in a terrorist attack.
Mr Benbrika tells SIO39 nothing can be done in Australia because there were treaties between this country and Muslims.
Mr Maidment said Mr Benbrika is heard in laty er conversations with members of the group telling them he had spun a line to SIO39.

Scott Dunmore, you are right about the need for vigilance. I was playing challenge pool in the pub a while back, and my opponent was telling me how he was doing security work at Port Adelaide, but thinking about re-enlisting to go to Iraq. I took him back to the bar for a chat. When I commented how the fences would be going higher once the Aegis gear came in, his "they sure will" was just a little to quick and keen for my liking. He went on his way shortly after, and I haven't seen him since. It may just have been one of those odd conversations, or it may have been one of those odd conversations. I'm not sure which.

If an ASIO officer leads you into recording incrimating statements, should those statements, which you would never have otherwise uttered, be counted as evidence against you?

One interpration of the ammonium nitrate story is that the gang were only pretending not to know how to mix ammonium nitrate into an explosive. The other is that they really didn't have a clue.

Australian entrapment law

Submitted by Mark Sergeant on February 20, 2008 - 11:07am.

Here is an analysis of Australian entrapment law.

I've only read the introduction and conclusion, but it looks like this case could set a precedent on whether it is legal to entrap people into thought crimes.

Concepts, criminals, creativity

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on February 20, 2008 - 1:03pm.

Thanks, Mark, it's going to take me more than one reading to get the hang of that, but I see where you're coming from.

The big issue is going to be how much connection there is between the Sydney and Melbourne groups. The Sydney mob were a lot further advanced, some of them training, others collecting detonators, and, quite likely, being stupid enough to attempt to "suss out" Lucas Heights with a trail bike. To put it colloquially, they were beginning to get their shit together. It looks to me that they are truly a terrorist group in training.

They share the same "priest" as the Melbourne group. He seems to be the only connection between the two, and it looks like he was trying to get something going along the lines of what was going on in Sydney.

Their progress would be what the ASIO officer would have been trying to ascertain. All he's found is a talkfest. Somewhere along the line they may have gotten organised enough to prepare and train with the Sydney group, but does the fact that such possibilities exist make the Melbourne group criminals?

Go back to Keelty's speech in Adelaide last year (in my piece "Preventing Terrorism") and you'll see how far he believes we have to go. My main trouble today is that if MI5 are using such a situation as their "intel" that Australia is being used as a preparation ground for jihad in the UK (Keelty was talking about the concept in Estimates the other day), then they've bugger-all to go on. You can begin to see why there was such a bad reaction to Haneef.

Don't forget Howard's gagging of Keelty for saying that our involvement in Iraq had increased chances of terrorist attacks in Australia. In this, in the long-term, he may be right, but I think he's blown everything else out of proportion.

Was the fact that these groups had been caught a factor used to calculate the possibility of simultaneous al Qaeda strikes on Australian cities during APEC?

No wonder Keelty doesn't want us speculating on the outcome of the trials Our police commissioner may well have built an international house of cards.

Meeting in Sydney

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on February 20, 2008 - 2:10pm.

As I was finishing that last post, this was hitting the wire:

[Herald-Sun extract]

Concerns among an alleged terror cell that they did not have enough "brothers" led them to take a trip to Sydney, a court has heard.
The Supreme Court heard the trip in December 2004 was "concerned with fostering the doing of a terrorist act ... shoring up the members available to this organisation''.

Prosecutor Richard Maidment, SC, said the group's spiritual leader Abdul Nacer Benbrika flew to the meeting with a ticket booked under a false name.

Other accused including Majed Raad, Fadl Sayadi and Aimen Joud also attended.

The jury was read more extracts from secretly recorded conversations in which group members express excitement about bomb-making literature that has come into their possession.

Abdullah Merhi shows the material, contained on computer disk, to Mr Benbrika who tells him he must be careful with it.

Mr Benbrika later described it to other members as: "How to make a bomb. How to do this or do it yourself all these kind of things.''

The court heard the consultative committee, comprising Mr Benbrika, Mr Sayadi, Mr Joud and Ahmed Raad, speak about teaching the rest of the brothers about it

The jury was told there was also discussion about who should be allowed to be in the group and take the pledge.

"This is not a club into which there is an automatic right of passage . . . you have got to be a person who is suitable in this organisation in order to be accepted by Mr Benbrika and one of the important considerations is discipline,'' Mr Maidment said.

No mention here that Berbinka was also the "spiritual advisor" of the Sydney group. He's the recruiting sergeant, I reckon. Either that, or a poseur.

Methinks the hypotheticals are being presented to the jury in a very careful order.

Push Ups

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on February 26, 2008 - 1:57pm.

[Australian extract]

During a secretly taped conversation between the two played to the jury of 10 women and five men, Mr Raad was heard describing how the "brothers" had worked closely together, swimming and doing push-ups

Scary stuff!

The Sydney trial's about to start, but from the sound of things they're going to have to build a bigger court room. The purposely-rebuilt room wasn't big enough to hold all the lawyers. It looks, like this one's going to be reported globally.

Do you get the feeling that the Melbourne event is just a practice run?

Legal censorship or apathy?

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on February 27, 2008 - 12:44am.

This monologue from Monday night's Boston Legal pretty well sums up how I feel about the state of play in Australia:

When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out to be not true, I expected the American people to rise up. Ha! They didn't.

Then, when the Abu Ghraib torture thing surfaced and it was revealed that our government participated in rendition, a practice where we kidnap people and turn them over to regimes who specialize in torture, I was sure then the American people would be heard from. We stood mute.

Then came the news that we jailed thousands of so-called terrorists suspects, locked them up without the right to a trial or even the right to confront their accusers. Certainly, we would never stand for that. We did.

And now, it's been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens. You and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, finally the American people will have had enough. Evidentially, we haven't.

In fact, if the people of this country have spoken, the message is we're okay with it all. Torture, warrantless search and seizure, illegal wiretappings, prison without a fair trial - or any trial, war on false pretenses. We, as a citizenry, are apparently not offended.

There are no demonstrations on college campuses. In fact, there's no clear indication that young people seem to notice

I keep reiterating that I believe Scott Parkin was evicted from this country on the basis of an adverse security assessment which had as it's cornerstone information that was obtained from an illegaly kept Pentagon file, for the double purpose of providing September 11 anniversary propaganda and protecting Hallibuton's reputation for Cheney. In that frame of mind I'm not able to take the information that ASIO and the AFP have collected (during the years of terrorism hysteria generated by the Howard Cabinet on behalf of Bush and Cheney) in good faith. When you're playing tapes of people talking about doing push-ups together, you're probably running skint on credibily preventable material, or at least what can be regarded as legally obtained.

If the prosecution's evidence isn't much more substantial than what is being outlined in the opening address, a guilty verdict is going to render thinking about terrorism an illegal act. Thanks to Keelty's speech, nobody is discussing such possibilities. Where are the opinion pieces, the commentaries? Nowhere to be found.

Like the lawyer in the TV show, I can't believe we've been taking this lying down, and still are.

AFP and Hicks

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on February 18, 2008 - 10:40am.

What's this about? It's been suggested, didn't catch by whom, waiting for print, that the hearings regarding Hicks' suppression order be adjourned till April, when the gag order expires and, according to the ABC reporter "he will be able to give evidence freely."

If he hasn't been able to give evidence freely, we have a bigger problem, in the Australian justice system being badly compromised by Cheney and Howard's interference. How do you judicially assess somebody who is legally prohibited from testifying?

Nice to see the AFP have given David a pre-paid mobile. Now they can pinpoint him via GPS whenever they feel like it.

One-sided stories.

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on February 18, 2008 - 11:55am.

Twas the magistrate who made the suggestion. He's telling the AFP that it's a one-sided story. The suppression order case resumes this afternoon.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Keelty has appeared before Senate Estimates to declare that the AFP have looked into their handling of the Haneef affair and found nothing needing changing. Keelty appears to have learned his lesson though, showing a bit of humility by adding that this doesn't mean the AFP wouldn't acquiesce to the recommendations of a federal inquiry.

Estimates still has to deal with the amazing amount of money the main player in the Haneef bungles spent on media monitoring. Kevin Andrews racked up a monitoring bill of a hundred and twenty grand between June and November last year, nearly half of that in the last month, while avoiding using his department's 20-person corporate communications team. Perhaps he was ignoring other parts of his department as well? Except of course, the part that received the plan from the AFP to use immigration laws to continue Haneef's incarceration ... oh, that's right, Andrews says he never read it.

Famous Last Words

Submitted by Michael de Angelos on February 2, 2008 - 12:30am.

Kevin Rudd says today that the government has "full confidence in Mick Keelty".

The end is nigh.

Richard: Michael, you heard PM this evening then? I was cheering. Some days such things restore one's faith in human nature. Mind you, Eliot's overdue. So is Keelty's reservation.

Must Resign

Submitted by Michael de Angelos on February 1, 2008 - 1:23pm.

With the announcement today: Stephen Keim, "barrister to former terrorism suspect Dr Mohammed Haneef, has been cleared of professional misconduct by Queensland's Legal Services Commissioner", it really is time for Keelty to do the honourable thing and resign.

It's Keelty that has claimed the Australian public needs confidence in the AFP - which we most certainly do, yet he has tried to play politics in the past few months, and very badly. Few people could surely have confidence in his stewardship of the federal police now. His speech at the Sydney Institute has surely sealed his fate.

Well Thank God !

Submitted by Michael de Angelos on January 31, 2008 - 9:42pm.

At last Robert McClelland is finally demonstrating that he does intend to remain true to his ideals. One of the more intelligent MP's and ministers, McClelland is a partner (on leave) of a fine law firm that has a long history of battling for the underdog, supporting unions and did much of the hard slog for the great Aussie hero, Bernie Banton.

I reckon Keelty has put his foot in it this time. A stupid speech at the wrong time and designed to pressure public opinion and a new Federal government. If the new Rudd lot had even given this bloke oxygen on his wacky views, Keelty would have been emboldened to go for more.

It's all over for the fool- I give him 6 months at the most.

Rudd blacks out Keelty's opinion

Submitted by Craig Rowley on January 31, 2008 - 6:56pm.

Yuko Narushima writes in the SMH today:

The Federal Government has slapped down Police Commisioner Mick Keelty for calling for a media blackout during all terrorist operations.

"Commissioner Keelty's comments represent his views, not those of the Rudd Government," the Attorney-General Robert McClelland said in a statment today.

"The Government has no plans to introduce a media blackout on the reporting of terrorism cases."

Mr McClelland said the media was crucial to democracy and keeping the government accountable.

"Access to government information and decision-making are keys to a healthy and vibrant democracy," he said.

"The media plays a vital role in helping to ensure governments remain accountable and always serve the public interest."

Did I mention Ministerial Direction ?

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on January 31, 2008 - 9:16pm.

I hadn't, and should've, thought about the game being played on his level. Keelty has told The Rudds what kind of AFP he wants, and the The Rudds have told him where to shove his notions.

Sushi Daz, who did such a spectacular job of interpreting the second Haneef transcript, has today made what looks like another accurate assessment:

[Age extract]

Since the AFP failed to remain independent and above politics as Howard government heavies weighed into the Haneef case to exploit popular insecurities, it's hard to see how the AFP under Keelty is going to redefine itself.
And redefine itself it must, to some degree, under the Rudd Government, which has signalled that while it is not about to soften tough counter-terrorism legislation, it will broaden its national security strategy to include a new focus on social policy to build bridges with the Islamic community.
On the domestic terrorism front, things have been going awry for Keelty for some time. But sheeting the blame home to the media, the very same media that his spin doctors seek to manipulate, is unworthy of his office.
If he hasn't already lost it, he is on the precipice of losing the public's trust. Perhaps the time has come for Keelty to hand in his badge

Ultimately, since Keelty is the one who has to do as he's told, he's stuffed before he starts.

I'm Glad You Brought This Up !

Submitted by Michael de Angelos on January 31, 2008 - 4:24pm.

And don't forget that it was the AFP who had selected TV news crews on hand for their 2am raids. It was such dramatic footage as doors were crashed down, submachine guns pointed and dogs on leashes followed by some hapless ME looking gents bundled out and their tearful families looking on bewildered.

Or the grand announcement of the capture by Indonesian police of the dreaded Bali Nine as though it was a master stroke of AFP detection work rather than an worried dad contacting them about his wayward son.

Keelty must be living in dreamland if he really thinks the media would fall for this. It really is time for him to hand in his notice - there must be a nice pension waiting for him and a comfortable retirement. Maybe some board appointments as well.

This latest speech is certainly an indication that he has to go (and maybe some of his top men as the transcripts of the Haneef grilling demonstrates their apparent ignorance of those they question).

I'm worried it's taking a toll on Mick's health as well. That once red nose is now developing a distinctly purple hue - no idea what causes this but it can't be healthy.

Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Navigation

The Issues

Comment viewing options